8 ms·

I know the easy approach here is for people to want an age limit in Congress, but I've always been more partial to a term limit. I'm sure there are plenty of h

I know the easy approach here is for people to want an age limit in Congress, but I've always been more partial to a term limit. I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.

seanw444 3y ago
Agreed. There may be some older people that are still totally capable. Not everyone's cognitive functions crumble at the same time, to the same degree, or even in the same way. Age limits are a bad solution.
yardie 3y ago
My problem with term limits is being a politician is a job like any other. You get a performance review every few years. But by the time you get really good at the job you're forced to quit. If there are age minimums for these federal offices there should be age maximums.
- stetrain 3y ago
  I think being too “good at the job” is part of what people are worried about for politicians. Yes there are skills to be learned to be effective in such a system, but being too entrenched in it can lead to forming relationships that overshadow the relationship with their constituents.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    What we've seen is term limits just result in the "party machine" really running the seat, as the warm body is replaced time and time again. Term limits are effective against populists, for whatever that's worth.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Term limits definitely come with very real tradeoffs. I'd argue, though, that if the machine is that corrupt it doesn't matter what we do with politicians. What you're describing sounds to me like the politicians are inconsequential puppets and the machine must be limited or removed. I could a tuallg get behind that idea, it wouldn't take much to convince me that term limits don't go after the real problem.
      - krapp 3y ago
        Maybe we should consider a less violent version of what Thomas Jefferson wanted and just replace the entire government, top to bottom, every 20 years. On top of any other term limits or whatever - just periodically reset everything for the current generation. Maybe that would even include a Constitutional convention. I've long been of the opinion that we should be updating the Constitution more often, and more easily. It isn't intended to be frozen in amber.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I'm definitely a fan of the general sentiment. Exactly how that is done to keep enough stability to avoid constant churn would be a really interesting debate, but I've long thought that laws should be required to come with expiration dates that have to be renewed. Personally, I'd also be so interested to see what the political response would be today if a group of well known and respected individuals scheduled a constitutional convention to honestly hold such discussions. It's exactly what we did to being the process of breaking away from the king, I wonder if they would get shut down somehow?
      - bombcar 3y ago
        My general lean is toward subsidiarity - decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. This is somewhat inefficient but it also minimizes major problems.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I'm not totally opposed to max age limits, that has tradeoffs just like term limits would. Theres no magic bullet unfortunately. Any line in the sand will have people caught in the crossfire, whether that's a person over the age limit that would make an excellent representative or a person who is blocked from a third term that actually isn't corrupted by the machine of political favor, lobbyists, etc.
- Zxian 3y ago
  I don't think it's fair to assume that votes are representative of performance. Politics are a popularity contest first and unfortunately that means image is more important than actions.
  - Goronmon 3y ago
    Are term limits more representative of performance than votes?
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      I'd say term limits are an unfortunate tradeoff that might be helpful when votes and performance diverge too far. If the machine itself is broken, any changes or limitations to the output (the politicians here) are just bandaids. I do actually think we should fix the underlying problem, but hopefully term limits could buy us some time and start to remove power from those who gained so much by the system that needs fixing.
Goronmon 3y ago
Term limits are just a mechanism to transfer power to un-elected officials and lobbyists, and to make sure any decent politicians are kicked out before they can have any lasting impact. Imagine working at a job where there were rules that forced your company to lay off all the most experienced folks after a few years. Sounds miserable to me.
- ianbutler 3y ago
  How do you feel about the US presidency in that case?
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Term limits should for the presidency should probably have been left as a "gentleman's agreement" and not codified in an amendment just because politicians were pissed at the people continually electing Roosevelt.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      I'm not familiar enough with the motivations behind that specific amendment. I could see it having been an increased concern over people being okay with ignoring the gentleman's agreement, but a political tit for tat with Roosevelt would also track.
  - Goronmon 3y ago
    Presidency is a special case as it is a singular role that holds enormous amounts of power. And former presidents still have the ability to transition back into Congress afterwards and affect change at that level.
    - krapp 3y ago
      Should the Presidency be a special case? The President isn't supposed to be "leader of the government," just an administrator of one of three co-equal branches led by the people. The president shouldn't be any more popular or powerful than a Senator or representative in Congress, arguably they should be less so because Congress writes the laws and controls the budget. But the way American politics works, driven by populism and celebrity worship, you'd think the President controls the entire government like the CEO of a company. Remove their power to pardon and issue executive orders - a President shouldn't have the authority to overrule the judicial or legislative branches. Give them a single. six year term. Make it illegal for them to hold any further government position, then boot them out. The Presidency should be nothing more than a revolving door of nobody bureaucrats, like a Prime Minister. Also, they shouldn't get Secret Service protection for life. They can have the same Second Amendment protections as other citizens after office, which are supposed to be perfectly sufficient. Or let them hire private security.
lefstathiou 3y ago
If I had a magic wand: 1- One six-year term on the presidency. Enough time to get stuff done and see the results, but then you're out. The current structure gives the American public 1-2 years of productivity, then they go into campaign mode on the tax payers dime. 2- All official party nominees get the exact same budget for campaigning. Creates a level playing field and neutralizes the power of lobbying 3- Congressman, Senators, Governors are limited to a single 6 year term. This will create a lot of churn, require voters to get engaged to understand the candidates better, and eliminate lifetime politicians who will inevitably be corrupted (I'm a cynic). Need to ponder how to hedge the power of the people behind the scenes who support the office since they are unelected and undoubtedly powerful (I'm thinking about the people writing Biden's scripts, who are they, who elected them, what do they believ, etc.... we know he isn't doing it).
- bombcar 3y ago
  I guarantee that "require voters to get engaged to understand the candidates better" is the exact opposite of what would happen. Voters ain't got time for that shit, they'd more strongly become single-party lever-pullers.
- kemayo 3y ago
  I'd throw in restructuring the Supreme Court. Lifetime appointments seem to have devolved into them being wildly politically swingy based on when very-old people decide to retire (or die), with a strong incentive to then install the youngest doctrinaire ideologues you can get through the Senate. (And to engage in political brinksmanship to push an appointment back a few months to give it to the other party if you can, etc.) Give them a fixed number of years and have new ones appointed on a schedule that's synced to presidential terms.
unsupp0rted 3y ago
I don't see a need for term limits- as long as they keep being popular and able to do the job, they should do it. I see a need for impartial testing of "able to do the job", such as "can count backwards from 20 without falling asleep or missing any numbers or going briefly catatonic".
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  My main concern without term limits is when an elected official moves from being popular and effective at their job to being effective at getting reelected. Those are very different skills, with the latter risking politicians that are only reelected because of the power, favors, and connections they have collected. Term limits definitely aren't a magic fix, I just see the tradeoffs as worth it relative to my personal concerns.
  - Goronmon 3y ago
    My main concern without term limits is when an elected official moves from being popular and effective at their job to being effective at getting reelected. How does forcing new candidates every number of years ensure that elected officials will be "popular and effective at their job"?
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      It doesn't. You aren't the only one here that raised similar question, I should have clarified that in my original post. I don't actually like governments creating regulations and drawing lines in the sand. As many have raised with term limits, it isn't a perfect answer and at best bandaids the real problem rather than fixing it. I'd argue that's the case with any regulation emposed on large populations, there are just too many complexities at that scale to draw a clean line. With term limits specifically, I see it as an unfortunate but possibly necessary tradeoff that may at least give us a chance to start fixing the real problem. We both need more time to find the right answer, and we need to remove those who collected so much power and control from the same system that needs to be fixed in the first place.
hedora 3y ago
Instead of term limits, I’d much rather they be paid a 99% percentile wage until death, but be banned from accepting any other income or gifts, investing in stocks or owning any sort of business or investment property (again, for life). It might be better to lower the income to 90th or 50th percentile, so only people that actually wanted the job would take it. Ideally, the restrictions would extend to the kids. It would definitely extend to the spouses. Also, all no campaign donations over $50. Finally, all campaign communications must be publicly archived in realtime, and no more political ads. (The latter is because some politicians now tell different, personalized lies to each constituent, thanks to the internet). Another possibility is to let anyone volunteer for congress, then pick the winner at random from the pool each term. This worked amazingly well for local positions in some country that tried it. (Government efficiency immediately doubled or something.)
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Oh I'm all for anything that can be done to prevent politicians from getting rich through insider trading, "gifts", favors, and happening into fortunes just after leaving office. I see that as a different problem to solve, but yeah if the solution to one can supercede the other I'd get behind that.
- kemayo 3y ago
  > Ideally, the restrictions would extend to the kids. It would definitely extend to the spouses. I actually really hate this idea whenever it comes up, at least for the kids. It feels rather oppressive that you could have your largely-estranged parent decide to get into politics, and have that entirely derail your life. The current system gives us a bunch of grifters like the Trump kids or Hunter Biden, to be sure, but I'd rather directly punish the parent who's being corrupt than their children who don't even hold office.
- antasvara 3y ago
  Salary proposals always run into one issue though: independently wealthy individuals have a massive advantage. Even if you limit their personal contributions to their campaign, it's difficult to impossible to prevent a wealthy person from making themselves much more well known in a campaign race. A wealthy person is also totally fine with whatever the salary is, because they already have a bunch of money.

seanw444 3y ago

Agreed. There may be some older people that are still totally capable. Not everyone's cognitive functions crumble at the same time, to the same degree, or even in the same way. Age limits are a bad solution.

yardie 3y ago

My problem with term limits is being a politician is a job like any other. You get a performance review every few years. But by the time you get really good at the job you're forced to quit. If there are age minimums for these federal offices there should be age maximums.

stetrain 3y ago
I think being too “good at the job” is part of what people are worried about for politicians. Yes there are skills to be learned to be effective in such a system, but being too entrenched in it can lead to forming relationships that overshadow the relationship with their constituents.
- bombcar 3y ago
  What we've seen is term limits just result in the "party machine" really running the seat, as the warm body is replaced time and time again. Term limits are effective against populists, for whatever that's worth.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Term limits definitely come with very real tradeoffs. I'd argue, though, that if the machine is that corrupt it doesn't matter what we do with politicians. What you're describing sounds to me like the politicians are inconsequential puppets and the machine must be limited or removed. I could a tuallg get behind that idea, it wouldn't take much to convince me that term limits don't go after the real problem.
    - krapp 3y ago
      Maybe we should consider a less violent version of what Thomas Jefferson wanted and just replace the entire government, top to bottom, every 20 years. On top of any other term limits or whatever - just periodically reset everything for the current generation. Maybe that would even include a Constitutional convention. I've long been of the opinion that we should be updating the Constitution more often, and more easily. It isn't intended to be frozen in amber.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I'm definitely a fan of the general sentiment. Exactly how that is done to keep enough stability to avoid constant churn would be a really interesting debate, but I've long thought that laws should be required to come with expiration dates that have to be renewed. Personally, I'd also be so interested to see what the political response would be today if a group of well known and respected individuals scheduled a constitutional convention to honestly hold such discussions. It's exactly what we did to being the process of breaking away from the king, I wonder if they would get shut down somehow?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      My general lean is toward subsidiarity - decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. This is somewhat inefficient but it also minimizes major problems.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
flagrant_taco 3y ago
I'm not totally opposed to max age limits, that has tradeoffs just like term limits would. Theres no magic bullet unfortunately. Any line in the sand will have people caught in the crossfire, whether that's a person over the age limit that would make an excellent representative or a person who is blocked from a third term that actually isn't corrupted by the machine of political favor, lobbyists, etc.
Zxian 3y ago
I don't think it's fair to assume that votes are representative of performance. Politics are a popularity contest first and unfortunately that means image is more important than actions.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  Are term limits more representative of performance than votes?
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    I'd say term limits are an unfortunate tradeoff that might be helpful when votes and performance diverge too far. If the machine itself is broken, any changes or limitations to the output (the politicians here) are just bandaids. I do actually think we should fix the underlying problem, but hopefully term limits could buy us some time and start to remove power from those who gained so much by the system that needs fixing.

Goronmon 3y ago

Term limits are just a mechanism to transfer power to un-elected officials and lobbyists, and to make sure any decent politicians are kicked out before they can have any lasting impact. Imagine working at a job where there were rules that forced your company to lay off all the most experienced folks after a few years. Sounds miserable to me.

ianbutler 3y ago
How do you feel about the US presidency in that case?
- bombcar 3y ago
  Term limits should for the presidency should probably have been left as a "gentleman's agreement" and not codified in an amendment just because politicians were pissed at the people continually electing Roosevelt.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    I'm not familiar enough with the motivations behind that specific amendment. I could see it having been an increased concern over people being okay with ignoring the gentleman's agreement, but a political tit for tat with Roosevelt would also track.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  Presidency is a special case as it is a singular role that holds enormous amounts of power. And former presidents still have the ability to transition back into Congress afterwards and affect change at that level.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Should the Presidency be a special case? The President isn't supposed to be "leader of the government," just an administrator of one of three co-equal branches led by the people. The president shouldn't be any more popular or powerful than a Senator or representative in Congress, arguably they should be less so because Congress writes the laws and controls the budget. But the way American politics works, driven by populism and celebrity worship, you'd think the President controls the entire government like the CEO of a company. Remove their power to pardon and issue executive orders - a President shouldn't have the authority to overrule the judicial or legislative branches. Give them a single. six year term. Make it illegal for them to hold any further government position, then boot them out. The Presidency should be nothing more than a revolving door of nobody bureaucrats, like a Prime Minister. Also, they shouldn't get Secret Service protection for life. They can have the same Second Amendment protections as other citizens after office, which are supposed to be perfectly sufficient. Or let them hire private security.

lefstathiou 3y ago

If I had a magic wand: 1- One six-year term on the presidency. Enough time to get stuff done and see the results, but then you're out. The current structure gives the American public 1-2 years of productivity, then they go into campaign mode on the tax payers dime. 2- All official party nominees get the exact same budget for campaigning. Creates a level playing field and neutralizes the power of lobbying 3- Congressman, Senators, Governors are limited to a single 6 year term. This will create a lot of churn, require voters to get engaged to understand the candidates better, and eliminate lifetime politicians who will inevitably be corrupted (I'm a cynic). Need to ponder how to hedge the power of the people behind the scenes who support the office since they are unelected and undoubtedly powerful (I'm thinking about the people writing Biden's scripts, who are they, who elected them, what do they believ, etc.... we know he isn't doing it).

bombcar 3y ago
I guarantee that "require voters to get engaged to understand the candidates better" is the exact opposite of what would happen. Voters ain't got time for that shit, they'd more strongly become single-party lever-pullers.
kemayo 3y ago
I'd throw in restructuring the Supreme Court. Lifetime appointments seem to have devolved into them being wildly politically swingy based on when very-old people decide to retire (or die), with a strong incentive to then install the youngest doctrinaire ideologues you can get through the Senate. (And to engage in political brinksmanship to push an appointment back a few months to give it to the other party if you can, etc.) Give them a fixed number of years and have new ones appointed on a schedule that's synced to presidential terms.

unsupp0rted 3y ago

I don't see a need for term limits- as long as they keep being popular and able to do the job, they should do it. I see a need for impartial testing of "able to do the job", such as "can count backwards from 20 without falling asleep or missing any numbers or going briefly catatonic".

flagrant_taco 3y ago
My main concern without term limits is when an elected official moves from being popular and effective at their job to being effective at getting reelected. Those are very different skills, with the latter risking politicians that are only reelected because of the power, favors, and connections they have collected. Term limits definitely aren't a magic fix, I just see the tradeoffs as worth it relative to my personal concerns.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  My main concern without term limits is when an elected official moves from being popular and effective at their job to being effective at getting reelected. How does forcing new candidates every number of years ensure that elected officials will be "popular and effective at their job"?
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    It doesn't. You aren't the only one here that raised similar question, I should have clarified that in my original post. I don't actually like governments creating regulations and drawing lines in the sand. As many have raised with term limits, it isn't a perfect answer and at best bandaids the real problem rather than fixing it. I'd argue that's the case with any regulation emposed on large populations, there are just too many complexities at that scale to draw a clean line. With term limits specifically, I see it as an unfortunate but possibly necessary tradeoff that may at least give us a chance to start fixing the real problem. We both need more time to find the right answer, and we need to remove those who collected so much power and control from the same system that needs to be fixed in the first place.

hedora 3y ago

Instead of term limits, I’d much rather they be paid a 99% percentile wage until death, but be banned from accepting any other income or gifts, investing in stocks or owning any sort of business or investment property (again, for life). It might be better to lower the income to 90th or 50th percentile, so only people that actually wanted the job would take it. Ideally, the restrictions would extend to the kids. It would definitely extend to the spouses. Also, all no campaign donations over $50. Finally, all campaign communications must be publicly archived in realtime, and no more political ads. (The latter is because some politicians now tell different, personalized lies to each constituent, thanks to the internet). Another possibility is to let anyone volunteer for congress, then pick the winner at random from the pool each term. This worked amazingly well for local positions in some country that tried it. (Government efficiency immediately doubled or something.)

flagrant_taco 3y ago
Oh I'm all for anything that can be done to prevent politicians from getting rich through insider trading, "gifts", favors, and happening into fortunes just after leaving office. I see that as a different problem to solve, but yeah if the solution to one can supercede the other I'd get behind that.
kemayo 3y ago
> Ideally, the restrictions would extend to the kids. It would definitely extend to the spouses. I actually really hate this idea whenever it comes up, at least for the kids. It feels rather oppressive that you could have your largely-estranged parent decide to get into politics, and have that entirely derail your life. The current system gives us a bunch of grifters like the Trump kids or Hunter Biden, to be sure, but I'd rather directly punish the parent who's being corrupt than their children who don't even hold office.
antasvara 3y ago
Salary proposals always run into one issue though: independently wealthy individuals have a massive advantage. Even if you limit their personal contributions to their campaign, it's difficult to impossible to prevent a wealthy person from making themselves much more well known in a campaign race. A wealthy person is also totally fine with whatever the salary is, because they already have a bunch of money.